Charleston attorneys respond to AG Wilson over Robert E. Lee marker

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – Attorneys for the City of Charleston are responding to a letter from SC Attorney General Alan Wilson regarding the removal of the Robert E. Lee Memorial Highway marker from a school property.

City leaders received a letter from the Charleston School of Math and Science requesting the removal of the marker from their property in July 2020.

After carefully examining the law and facts, the city’s legal department decided that removal or relocation of the marker was allowed under the Heritage Act.

But Attorney General Alan Wilson last week sent a letter to Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg urging him to “restore the Lee Memorial to its original condition” and threatened to take the city to court for violating the Heritage Act.

HOW IT BEGAN:

A Charleston man reached out to News 2 in 2020 after he noticed the historical marker at the Charleston Charter School for Math and Science, wanting to know how the marker got there and who was responsible for placing it there. Leaders from the City of Charleston and the Charleston County School District told News 2 at the time it was unclear who owned the statue or how it originated.

Charleston County School District (CCSD) Superintendent Gerrita Postlewait later reiterated the district’s request for removal in a letter dated Feb. 16, 2021, and the memorial was placed in safe storage.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT:

The American Heritage Association earlier this month accused the City of Charleston and Mayor John Tecklenburg of violating the Heritage Act by removing the marker.

The group claimed that Mayor Tecklenburg’s office “admitted to removing the Robert E. Lee Memorial” from the Charleston School of Math and Science in a letter that was sent to the association back in December 2021. They threatened legal action if it was not restored.

AG Wilson then responded with his opinion that the city restores the marker. “Unless the Lee Memorial is restored to its rightful place in preserving history, we will go to court to uphold the Heritage Act. The rule of law must prevail,” he said.

NOW:

In a recent letter from the City of Charleston to AG Wilson, attorneys shared an explanation as to why they felt the removal of the marker was consistent with the plain language of the Heritage Act, and state Supreme Court precedent involving the Act. 

READ: See the city’s letter to AG Wilson

Those reasons are outlined below as provided by the City of Charleston:

1. The Heritage Act is four sentences long, and the first two sentences define precisely what is prohibited under the law, neither of which apply here. Those sentences read: “(A) No Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, War Between the States, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Native American, or African-American History monuments or memorials erected on public property of the State or any of its political subdivisions may be relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered. No street, bridge, structure, park, preserve, reserve, or other public area of the State or any of its political subdivisions dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic event may be renamed or rededicated.”

2. When a statute (such as the Heritage Act) is clear, courts enforce the statute based on the plain meaning of the words they contain – i.e., such a statute would not be interpreted so as to change or expand that plain meaning. Applying this well-established legal principle to the Heritage Act makes clear the legality of the city of Charleston’s actions in this matter.

3. The first sentence of the Act (see “1” above) states that “monuments or memorials” to certain specific wars or to Native American or African American history cannot be “relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered.” And while it is true that General Robert E. Lee served in the War Between the States, he is not himself that war, any more than Colonel Strom Thurmond is World War II, despite the senator’s indisputably valiant service in that conflict. In short, the plain meaning of war is just that – war.

4. As to the second sentence of the Act (again “1” above), it plainly prohibits only renaming and rededication.  It does not prohibit relocations, removals, disturbances or alterations. Accordingly, although Robert E. Lee was an important “historic figure,” and the highway was — assuming that news accounts of the era are accurate — “dedicated” and “named” in his memory, at no time has the city of Charleston attempted to rename or rededicate the Robert E. Lee Memorial Highway. 

5. A 2021 Supreme Court case discusses the precise wording of Heritage Act and reiterated the named things that subsection 10-1-165(A) protects and those it does not protect. Pinckney v. Peeler, 434 S.C. 272, 294, 862 S.E.2d 906, 918 (2021).  Applying the plain meaning of the Heritage Act and this 2021 decision to the marker removed by the City, it is clear that: 1) the first sentence of the Act does not cover the marker, and 2) the second sentence does not prohibit the city’s actions in this case.